Category: Adnan Syed

Wrong One Convicted

Every year, hundreds of people are wrongfully convicted in the justice system. Defendants have been forced to extensive amounts of jail time or even faced their death before proven innocent, due to the errors that the criminal justice system commits (Leo & Gould 2009). Many of these wrongful convictions are powered by the incapacity of defense lawyers that are unable to gather factual information, insufficient DNA evidence, false witnesses, and even racial discrimination. In 1999, being only 17, Adnan Syed’s life came crashing down when he was wrongfully convicted of a murder he did not commit. A High School senior, Hae Min Lee was strangled and found buried in Baltimore’s Leakin Park. The only connection that she had to Syed was that she had dated him. He pleaded not guilty for murder and kidnapping of his ex-girlfriend, Lee, but was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years. In a year, his conviction was set forth even with minimal evidence that led to him, evidence that targeted him vastly due to the fact that they dated before. His sentencing was negatively influenced by opposing lawyers and was majorly biased because of his race (Lucky 1651). His case, amongst many other cases, are examples of how careless the justice system is towards minorities.

Adnan Syed’s trial was majorly biased in a negative way, making it simple for the criminal justice to unjustly convict him of the murder. In the article, Duncan states:

In the more than thirty years since the definitive ineffective assistance of counsel case Strickland v. Washington prisoners have famously had difficulty proving that their trial counsel provided constitutionally inadequate representation. The success rate of ineffective assistance of counsel claims is well documented as abysmally low. Worse still, the failure rate of ineffective assistance claims does not accurately reflect the frequency with which defendants receive unacceptable legal representation at trial. (Duncan 1653)

By this, the rate of successfulness towards a case that is treated unjustly is low. The article states how poor defense lawyering was the result of having Syed’s Six Amendment rights taken away from him, rushing his trial to only a year, and sentencing him to life in prison due to the lack of an unfair trial. In Webster’s article, it states, “Prosecutors’ role in detecting false convictions can best be understood against the backdrop of the failings of judicial review, for it is partly because of appellate system inadequacy that falsely convicted defendants have taken to prevailing upon prosecutors for relief.” Because of the lack of a fair trial, Syed’s lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez mishandled and carelessly managed his case, failing to cross-examine the prosecution’s cell phone tower expert and failing to check the reliability of the location for the calls, placing him at the scene of the crime. Gutierrez also failed to investigate Syed’s alibi, Asia McClain, who stated that she saw Syed in her school’s library during the time of the murder. Syed asked Gutierrez if she had interrogated McClain about the topic, but she stated that nothing came up. In the podcast, “Serial Podcast Season One, Episode 7: The Opposite of Prosecution,” by Sarah Koenig it states, “Post-conviction work often involves going back and looking at physical evidence in a case. Some innocence projects only work with cases that have DNA evidence, for instance.” The validity of the DNA evidence before the court always depends on how the prosecutors accurately collect it. Its preservation and documentation also helps the court distinguish how reliable the evidence is towards the case (Jangir 16). The prosecutors tested DNA found on Lee’s necklaces, blood samples, fingernail clippings, T-shirt, jacket, rope, a liquor bottle, and even a condom wrapper, but none of them matched Adnan Syed’s DNA, resulting in no form of forensic evidence relating to him. The evidence found is exculpatory but not strong enough for an exoneration. The prosecutors still managed to defend their case by stating that even though Syed’s DNA was not found, it did not prove his innocence. The reason why no DNA found does not prove Adnan’s innocence, is that even though DNA highlights the flaws in the criminal justice system, it does not eliminate them. However since no DNA was traced back to Syed, it really benefited him and has been significantly helpful and important towards his case.

Adnan Syed had a specific witness that was critical to his case; Jay Wilds. Wilds’ testimony was not only a giant part of Syed’s conviction but his testimony was also filled with falsified information, as every time Wilds talked, he gave out different information about what he witnessed. As stated in the article, Bellin states, “A lawyer cannot sponsor witness testimony that she knows to be untrue”. Just by that fact, his testimony should have been dismissed from the beginning (Bellin, 427). He ‘confessed’ that he helped Syed burry Lee’s body after having originally denied having to do part with the murder. However, because of his testimony, he did not go to prison but was instead given a year on probation. His memory was also altered by marijuana. Wilds was more of an acquaintance to Syed rather than a friend, as they only hung out to smoke marijuana. This brings to the fact that marijuana can produce short-term problems with thinking, working memory, executive function, and psychomotor function, which can alter the way someone thinks. The article, “The Chronic Effects of Cannabis on Memory in Humans: A review,” by Nadia Solow and Robert Barristi states, “age of onset of cannabis use may also be a critical factor, with potentially greater deleterious effects to the brain when cannabis use is commenced during significant periods of neurodevelopment, such as adolescence.” Marijuana has chemicals that attach to brain receptors in regions that are vital for memory formation (Solowij & Battisti 82). Wilds was under the influence of marijuana at the time of Lee’s murder, making it another reason why he was an unreliable witness towards Syed’s case. His memory was majorly affected by the drug, which could have also altered his memory into thinking that Syed was the criminal. If it weren’t for Jay Wilds’ testimony, Syed may have not ended up in jail.

Adnan Syed had a highly influenced and biased trial. Much of the influence was based on his race. In the podcast, Sarah Koenig it states, “In other words that he’s a Pakistani Muslim and–people are saying his dark side, and his– there was some notation about he was very controlling. I thought, ‘I wonder if he was really very controlling.’ So there’s that.” Lee had moved on from her and Syed’s breakup, which allowed prosecutors to add on to Syed’s case stating that because of his belief structure, it was acceptable for a Muslim man to ‘eliminate’ a woman due to the dishonor she caused towards him (Koeong 154). In the article, Undisclosed: Five Legal Lessons from the Adnan Syed Case, it stated, “They easily could have said this was a case of domestic violence or dating violence. It happens in this country all the time. They didn’t. They said it was an honor killing.” Islamophobia had a big influence on Syed’s prosecution, negatively stereotyping his religion by discriminating against him and Muslims from social and political life. The prosecution had a major focus on the dating laws of Islam, stating that in the Islamic culture, no code violation was committed, but rather stating that Syed had defended his honor and pride. There was no factual evidence that connected Syed’s religion to the trial, but the prosecutors still managed to add his beliefs which influenced a religious bias. (Chaudry 369)

There have been arguments, however, that lead to Syed’s guilt. Many of Syed’s friends described him as an uptight and very angry person when he was broken up by Lee. Many of the times, Syed was described as a person who only wanted to please other people, even if it meant that he had to change his whole personality. This puts in perspective that Syed is not as innocent as everyone thinks he is because he tried to be someone he wasn’t just to make other people happy. Adnan was mad that they were no longer together, which also stated the fact that it was his first loss at something, making it believable that he was not happy with him being broken up by Lee. His emotions made him unable to deal with the loss, developing major hatred towards Lee. His phone also tracked many calls to his friends during the day that Wilds was arrested. Wilds maintained Syed’s guilt by saying that he isn’t involved with whatever makes Syed innocent. Without Wilds’ testimony, it would have been impossible for the state to even bring Syed to trial. Lee’s parents have no doubt that Syed killed their daughter.

In conclusion, Adnan Syed’s unfair conviction has been famously talked about throughout the world. Many cases state his guiltiness, but the majority point out to his obvious innocence. There are many contributors to Syed’s wrongful conviction, including a poor lawyering defense, a racial target, a drug induced witness, and a lack of DNA evidence. Being wrongfully convicted is something no one wants to go through, but what Adnan Syed went through was one of the many cases that people who are wrongfully convicted go through in the justice system. Jay Wilds, Cristina Gutierrez, and many more were contributors to Syed’s conviction, and each had their own part which affected negatively towards his case, whether it was from being under the influence and confessing to something that didn’t happen, or whether it was from being careless about the case and the person being prosecuted. His case was majorly biased in the courtroom, which influenced the fact that his case was not just about him being Lee’s ex-boyfriend, but how he was a Muslim that wanted to defend his own honor. Even if Syed was proven innocent, the evidence that was provided in his trial was not merely enough to have him convicted. If he ever is proven innocent, Adnan Syed’s life will not be recovered because of all the years that he spent in jail.

Works Cited

1. Meredith J. Duncan, “Lucky” Adnan Syed: Comprehensive Changes to Improve Criminal
2. Defense Lawyering and Better Protect Defendants’ Sixth Amendment Rights, 82 Brook. L. Rev. (2017)
3. Smith, Earl, and Angela Hattery. “Race, Wrongful Conviction & Exoneration.” Journal of African
4. American Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 74–94. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s12111-010-9130-5. Accessed 22 October 2019
5. Chaudry, Rabia, “Undisclosed” Five Legal Lessons from the Case of Adnan Syed, Texas Tech `
6. Law Review, 2016, Vol.48(2), pp.363-374, Cenage Learning, Inc.
7. Bellin, Jeffrey, “The Silence Penalty” (March 1, 2017). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 103, p. 395, 2018.
8. Solowij, Nadia, “The Chronic Effects of Cannabis on Memory in Humans: A Review, Battisti,
9. Robert, Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 2008, Vol 1, 81-98
10. Koenig, Sarah, “Serial: Season 1”, Episode 7, This American Life,
11. 2014-2020,https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/7/the-opposite-of-the-prosecution
12. Jangir, Shyam Sundar, The Role of DNA in Criminal Investigation – Admissibility in Indian Legal
13. System and Future Perspectives, (2015),10.13140/RG.2.1.4126.3209.
14. Webster, Elizabeth, “THE PROSECUTOR AS A FINAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST
15. FALSE CONVICTIONS: HOW PROSECUTORS ASSIST WITH EXONERATION.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol.110, No.2, Northwestern University (on behalf of the School of Law), Apr. 2020, pp. 245-305, http://search.proquest.com/docview/2387301111/.

Adnan’s Story: The Search for Truth and Justice After Serial is a 416-page biography written by Rabia Chaudry, a childhood friend of Adnan Syed, the titular subject of the aforementioned biography. Adnan Syed was arrested on February 28 of 1999, and charged with the first-degree murder of his girlfriend Hae Min Lee; however, the trial has quickly declared a mistrial as the Jury overheard a sidebar dispute between Adnan Syed’s hired Defense Attorney and the judge. Following the issue, a new trial was established, and Adnan Syed was found guilty and charged with murder in the first degree, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and robbery on February 25 of 2000, and was sentenced to life in prison.

Adnan Syed appealed his conviction several times, maintaining his stance of innocence through the entire thing; his first appeal was in 2003, which was unsuccessful. Later, he made another based on an ineffective and incompetent council in 2010 and was initially denied in 2014. Adnan Syed’s appeals were eventually accepted on February 6 of 2015, from where the Maryland Court of Special Appeals remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on May 18 of 2015. On November 6 of 2015, Judge Martin Welch ordered the re-opening of Adnan Syed’s post-conviction relief proceedings. These proceedings, though originally only scheduled to last for two days, lasted five, from February 3 to February 9 of 2016, and was attended by people from all over the United States; and though Judge Welch granted a new trial, they denied Adnan Syed bail in the meantime, However, the Maryland Court of Appeals, on March 8 of 2019, with a 4 to 3 vote, reversed the lower court’s ruling, and denied the new trial, arguing that though Adnan’s counsel was deficient, it would not have been enough to sway the Jury effectively.

During this time, Adnan Syed’s story became internationally known through use of becoming the subject of the first season of the Podcast Serial, hosted by Sarah Koenig, which called into question the validity of the guilty verdict, and the fairness of the trial, though ultimately ended the subject with Sarah Koenig claiming that even she didn’t know if Adnan Syed was guilty or not, much to the dismay of Rabia Chaundry, who hoped it would maintain support of Adnan Syed’s innocence. Following the podcast’s end in 2014, there were discussions beginning to pop up regarding the lack of use of DNA evidence in the trial, on how Maryland prosecutors tested multiple items tied to the murder but refused to utilize any DNA from Adnan Syed, claiming that the prosecution inherently and intentionally knew it would expose the case as scapegoating; the prosecution denied the claim. Adnan’s story continued to be told, as Investigation Discovery aired a full hour-long special called Adnan Syed: Innocent or Guilty? On June 14 of 2016. Other instances include the biography Confessions of a Serial Alibi written by Asia McClain Chapman on June 7 of 2016, the biography Adnan’s Story: The Search for Truth and Justice After Serial written by Rabia Chaundry on August 9 of 2016, and even in May of 2018, where HBO announced a four-hour documentary based on the case, which revealed that Adnan Syed even refused a plea bargain which would have required him to serve four years before release.

Though it has yet to be proven, many of the supporters of Adnan Syed believed that prosecutors and police were blinded in their investigation by Adnan Syed’s Muslim heritage and that since there has been no evidence of Adnan Syed being violent or abusive, they police and Prosecutors had to rely on stereotypes and harsh generalizations of his religion, arguing that he had the potential to commit the crime just because he was Muslim. Police and prosecution deny these claims. Another instance commonly brought up is the series of knocks and tapping done from police during the testimony of Jay Wilds, one of the witnesses, and crucial to the prosecution’s case. The tapping and knocking was heard whenever Jay Wilds began to have issues remembering what had happened, and the series of taps seemingly reminding him. It is accused by attorney Susan Simpson that the tapping was evidence of the police feeding Jaw Wilds with evidence of his story and what to say, even going so far as to change his story just after the proceedings. This was later proved in a 2019 statement, where Jaw Wilds claimed his statement of seeing the body of Hae Min Lee at Best Buy came purely from the police.

Adnan’s story was a tumultuous one, constantly going back and forth in a way that the court system should be ashamed of; Prosecution and Police struggling to find reason for Adnan Syed’s guilt, while simultaneously struggling to deny any way for the hired Defense to prove his innocence. Despite all of this, at the end of the day, the Jury had reached their verdict, and trust must be placed in that decision.

10,000 people are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, and that at least 340 innocent people may have been executed since 1973. Adnan Syed is living proof of this statistic. He was wrongfully convicted for the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. Sarah Koeing unfolds the whole story in her podcast “Serial”. Throughout the podcast, Sarah uncovers and interviews many for unveiling details about Adnan Syed. Even though there are leads to why Adnan Syed may be seen as the murderer and be labeled as guilty, this whole case is lacking the foundation of hard physical evidence and facts. This whole trial is being misled by Jay Wild’s inconsistent testimonies, lack of hard evidence, unreliable cellphone records, Asia McClain’s testimony, and lastly, was defended by poor tactics of Christina Gutierrez. Although many would say this is a “Young Love Gone Wrong” situation, Adnan Syed has wrongfully been in prison for misled information.

To begin with, this whole trial has been misled by Jay Wilds’s inconsistent testimonies. His inconsistent lies should have been questioned more during the trial and should have been used against him. Jay wild states that the cops showed up to the video store without him knowing. When Sarah interviews his friend Josh he has something else to say. Josh states that Jay had told him that he personally called them making him 100 percent aware that police where on the way. By him lying about this it is clearly portraying that Jay was definitely had something to hide, as a result making him paranoid. Police should have questioned him further more about his inconsistencies. Jay also “forgets’’ to state in his interview on Febuarty 28th that he had seen a white van with Middle Eastern men outside the video store. This is just adding more fuel to the fire making Jay even more of a liar and making it seem that all of what he said through out this trial hard to believe. In a social phycology article titled, “How To Recognize The Signs” by Kendra Cherry, Kendra clearly states that, “If the speaker seems to intentionally leave out important details, it might be because they are lying” (Cherry 1). One can clearly see that this is the case with Jay, this type of information that he told Josh should have been said during his interview. Overall, Jay’s whole testimony can be clearly seen as a whole lie. Although Jay may not have killed Hae Min Lee, he is definitely hiding something and because of this, he should have been in the same position as Adnan Syed and also be in prison for his involvement.

Another reason why he’s Adnan Syed is not guilty is simply because there is no hard physical evidence that was used against him. One would assume that with Adnan being sentenced life in prison there was some type of physical evidence that was used against him. But in reality, nothing was tested against him. There was no physical evidence linking Syed to the murder of Hae. Jay Wild had testified that after they buried Hae’s body, Adnan had driven the car from the park to dump her body. This is hard to believe since no soil from Leakin Park was found in the car. Jay had also stated that Adnan strangled Hae, which would evidently leave some DNA in the crime scene. The Department of Justice states that, “ DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases where a suspect is identified, a sample of that person’s DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator. Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime scenes through the use of DNA databases.” If they know that Adnan is the suspect then why can’t they link his DNA to the crime scene? It was reported that police had collected swabs from Lee’s body but was never tested for DNA. Adnan shouldn’t have been convicted because of the fact that there wasn’t enough solid evidence to tie him with. In Episode 03 of the “Serial” podcast, a mysterious brandy bottle was introduced. The bottle was found near Haes dead body at Leakin Park. This piece of information was very crucial and should have without a doubt been tested. The results of the test could have led this case to the actual murderer but instead wasn’t even tested. Because of these it only leads one to that Adnan Syed is in fact wrongly convicted for the murder of Hae.

Many see the cellphone records being a solid piece of evidence in this case and it was what ultimately led Adnan to being convicted. Those AT&T records stated that “Syed’s phone “pinged” a cellphone tower covering the park and nearby areas during calls he received at 7:09 pm and 7:16 pm on 13 January 1999.” These cellphone records were described by as “the pillar of the state’s case” against him. What many are not aware of is that the cellphone records that were used against Syed were considered unreliable. The Jurors of this case were also unaware of this, which is another main reason why Adnan was more than likely wrongly convicted for the murder of Hae Lee. In an Irish Times Article by Mark Ramirez, Ramirez states that “Gerald Grant, a communications forensics expert, testified in Baltimore City Circuit Court that jurors should have been told that AT&T cellphone records used to place Syed at the site where Lee’s body was buried were flawed. The AT&T engineer who testified in the original trial was not aware that outgoing phone calls were reliable but incoming calls were not, he said. A sheet accompanying the faxed records included that disclaimer but was misplaced or overlooked.” (Ramirez 1). The Jurors were clearly misinformed of the reliability of the cellphone records. If they knew this about the records then the possible outcome of the trial will be different. Possibly resulting it still being an open investigation to this day, but one thing for sure Adnan Syed was put in jail for “evidence ” that is unreliable which is unrightful.

A main reason that leads to why Adnan Syed is being wrongly convicted is because of his Alibi. Asia McClain was an important piece of evidence to support Adnan. Unfortunately, she did not participate in Adnan’s appeal. Although she wrote letters to Adnan stating that she knew he was innocent Adnan’s defense attorney never contacted Asia. Hypothetically, if Asia McClain participated during Adnan’s appeal then she would have eliminated the possibility of him being elsewhere after school on January 13th, 1999. In the article “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely On Eyewitness Accounts” by Rabia Chaudry, Rabia states that, “Jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident” (Rabia 4). With that being said if the jurors where to be educated on this then they would of known for a fact that Asia McClain is being honest about her testimony and woud consider that she did clearly remember that she saw Adnan enter the library at around 2:30 pm Overall, Adnan Syed’s defense team did a poor job in trying to contact Asia McClain. Asia could have served more than a purpose in Adnan’s appeal; she could have been the one in proving Adnan’s innocence.

Christina Gutierrez, Adnan Syed’s defense attorney was stated to be tough, savvy, and smart. Her colleagues even praised her by saying, “She was exactly the kind of person you’d want defending you on first degree murder charge.” The podcast seemed to display her as the complete opposite. Christina’s defense tactics quickly backfired in Adnan’s case. She failed to contact Adnan’s only alibi. After Adnan’s trial had ended Cristina’s career had also ended a year after. Adnan Syed was represented and defended poorly, at the end he was convicted which seemed to puzzle many since she was known to win cases similar to Adnan’s. Which led many to believe that this whole case was unfair and bias. Adnan should have been given a retrial but results in him serving a life sentence for a crime he is un-guilty of.

To Conclude, Adnan Syed is serving life in prison for a crime that he did not commit. This whole case is being misled by Jay Wilds’s testimony, which is proven as lies. Adnan shouldn’t also be in prison because of the fact that there is no physical evidence that ties him with the murder of Hae Min Lee, the cell phone records used against him are proven as unreliable, he had a poor defense team supporting him, and of his alibi Asia McClain. As a result of this Adnan Syed is serving a life sentence in prison but is currently being re considered for a retrial. Hopefully, now he can fully be represented the way he deserves and can get his life back.

Introduction to the Case of Adnan Syed

Adnan Syed was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Hae Min Lee went missing on the 13th of January 1999. Her body was found less than a month later on February 9th. The cause of death was manual strangulation, meaning somebody choked her to death with their hands. Syed was Lee’s ex-boyfriend at the time of her disappearance, and Lee was dating Don Clinedinst. There were four main pieces of evidence that was used in the conviction of Syed, the phone call records, Jay Wild’s testimonies, Syed not having an alibi, and Syed having “a motive” to kill Hae. Syed’s case went to trial and was over within six weeks, and it only took the jurors three hours to decide if Syed was guilty or not. He was found guilty on February 25th, 2000, and he was sentenced to jail on the 6th of June later on that year. To this day, Syed still remains in prison. Jay Wild was the star eyewitness of this case, even though he admits to lying about certain things, he was still a “credible” witness. Syed’s lawyer did not bring in a witness that would help Syed. “Syed claimed that his attorney at the time, Cristina Gutierrez, did not look into an alibi witness, Asia McClain, who said she was with Syed at Woodlawn High School’s library at the time of the murder” (Pak). The evidence that was used to convict Syed was questionable considering lots of it was purely based off of guessing and one person’s stories.

There have been hundreds of cases where people were found guilty, went to prison, served time, and after time they were found innocent. “During the last quarter-century, there have been 325 DNA exonerations in the United States (1989-2014)” (West 717). Since September of 2019, the Innocence Project documented 365 DNA exonerations in America. The Innocence Project is a non-profit group that helps people who have been wrongfully convicted because of DNA testing. These cases that they work on are sexual assault cases and murder cases. If there have been hundreds of cases that resulted in wrongful convictions, who knows how many more there are, they just haven’t been solved yet. Adnan Syed could potentially be one of these people who were wrongfully convicted. Adnan Syed was a young boy in high school, only 17 years old, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. Syed’s case seemed to be completed within a very short time, with very little evidence connecting him to the murder. A big part of this was Syed not having an alibi, and also not remembering much of that day. However, Adnan Syed’s case should be reopened due to the fact of the unreliable eyewitness testimonies and the questionable evidence used to prosecute Adnan.

Evidence Against Adnan Syed

There were four main pieces of evidence that was used to convict Adnan Syed, first was the cell phone evidence. 31 phone calls were made to or from Syed’s phone on January 13th, 1999, the day Hae Min Lee was murdered. The first call was made to Jay Wilds, at 10:45 am. Syed, Wilds, and the prosecution’s stories are all different about this call and how it went down. The call only lasted for about half a minute and it was made at the high school. “According to Adnan, he called Jay from school to make sure Jay remembered to get a birthday present for his girlfriend, Stephanie” (Simpson). Syed told Koenig, the Serial Podcast host, that he drove to Jay’s house and asked him if he had a present for his girlfriend. He then told Jay he could borrow his car and drop him off at school, go shopping, pick out a gift for Stephanie, and then pick up Syed after track practice. However, Wild’s said that Adnan went with him to go shopping and told him he planned on murdering Lee, and then he dropped him off at school after shopping.

Both Syed and Wilds said that Adnan lent him his car and cellphone and that he would call when he needed picked up. The fifth call made that day was at 2:36 pm and the prosecution’s story was that this call was Syed calling Wilds from a Best Buy payphone saying to come pick him up. But, “For various reasons, the prosecution’s theory of the 2:36 call is not likely to be correct. It is not based on the testimony of any witness, and cannot be squared by known timelines” (Simpson). However, the phone call records show that the call went through the Woodlawn tower and that Jay was not where Jenn and Jay said he was. The records show that he was in the same area as Hae around the time she disappeared, and if he wasn’t with Jenn, then he has no one to prove he was somewhere else. There were other phone calls made around and after the time of Hae’s disappearance, but Adnan states that he was at the high school or the library waiting for track practice to start at 3:30 pm. None of the phone calls that day point Adnan towards the murder, but they sure do make Wilds seem suspicious.

Questioning the Conviction: Inconsistencies and Unreliable Testimonies

The second main piece of evidence was Jay Wilds’s testimonies. Surprisingly, Jay Wilds was the main eyewitness, who put Syed behind bars. Wild’s multiple testimonies have lots of inconsistencies between the different testimonies. Wilds admitted to lying during his interrogations and changes his story again. When Jay was first interrogated, he was asked why he would volunteer to help Syed bury Hae’s body, also asking if Syed had anything against him. Wilds said Syed knew he sold drugs and could’ve been locked up for that. In his second interview, he was asked why he lied about the location where Lee was killed and Jay responded with, “Uh, I figured there was cameras there or somebody had spotted him doing what he was doing” (Simpson 2). Why would he lie about the location of the murder if he wasn’t the one who did it? Wilds also told authorities that he is willing to lie that way he doesn’t get in trouble or go to jail. If he is willing to lie about selling marijuana, its highly likely that Wilds would be willing to cover himself up and lie about the murder and who did it.

In the blog written by Susan Simpson, there are pages of inconsistencies. Wilds said at the trial that the reason for Syed killing Hae was that Lee made him mad, but in an interview, he said that Syed was heartbroken, and when he was being interviewed for the Serial podcast he said that “Adnan confronted Hae about flirting with… a car salesman and when she called Adnan crazy, he snapped and strangled her” (Koenig 8). Wilds is asked if Syed talked about killing Hae and planning it, and during his second interview, he says that Syed planned on killing her and told Wilds a lot that he was going to do it, but during the trial, he said he only talked about it once. Within the same interview, Jay changes the number of days from one to four or five days before her disappearance, that Syed said he was going to kill her, but in his very first interview, he said the same day. These inconsistencies are minimal, but they did affect a lot.

The Broader Issue of Wrongful Convictions

The bigger inconsistencies occur when Jay is asked about the locations of where Syed killed Lee, where Wilds was shown the body, and many more factors. He switches from Hae being killed in her car in the Best Buy parking lot, to being at the Woodlawn library, to Patapsco State Park. When he is asked about where he was shown the body, he switched his story seven times about the location, seven times. In Jay’s third interview he talks about Hae being killed at Patapsco Park, and that Syed paid him to help get rid of her body after 2:15 pm. But in episode five of Serial, Wilds said they are there at 4:30 pm after they ditched Lee’s car, and they stay for about half an hour smoking and Syed is talking about what it was like killing Lee. But he also says in the same episode, that they are there after 6:30 pm after leaving Cathy’s apartment and going and getting Hae’s car. But at the trial, Wilds says he never went to the park. Those time differences are hours apart and every story is different as to what happened. There are many more little inconsistencies about certain things Jay is asked about, but almost every time he was asked a question, his story switched up into something different.

Syed not having an alibi on the day Hae Min Lee disappeared was the third main piece of evidence used against him. Even though Asia McClain said she saw Syed in the library that day around the time the murder took place. Syed’s lawyer never called Asia up to the stand to give a testimony, no lawyer contacted her. But Syed’s story of how the day went was when he first called Jay, he said he was making sure that Wilds got a gift for Stephanie, Jay’s girlfriend because Syed and Stephanie were good friends. When Jay said no, Adnan drove over to his house and had Wilds take him back to the school, and he let him borrow his car and phone while he went shopping, and Jay would pick him up after Adnan’s track practice. Adnan said he was at the school until it let out at 2:15 pm, and he went to the library after school until track practice at 3:30 or 4:00 pm. However, Syed doesn’t know for sure, but he said he probably went to the library.

Adnan says he was at track practice that day, and around 4:58 pm Syed called Wilds to come pick him up from track practice. Jay picks him up around 5:15 pm, they smoke and head to Cathy’s apartment. At around 6:24 pm Adnan gets a call from an officer, they speak for a few minutes while Jay and Adnan head to the car to leave. Adnan takes Jay home after that and heads to the mosque. “Adnan’s father testified at trial that, on January 13, 1999, Adnan “attended religious services with him from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.” (Brief of Appellant at 16). Adnan’s mosque was close to his home” (Simpson). After that Adnan is not sure what happened but most likely he went home. According to Syed, he was not involved in Hae’s disappearance and murder.

The fourth main piece of evidence that was used against his “motive”. When a small insert from Hae’s diary was examined, there was little writing about Adnan being controlling. “Those entries suggested that Syed could be “possessive” in a manner that could be considered typical of high school boys and that he was initially sad about their breakup” (McDonell-Parry). After awhile Lee was seeing Don, who was her boyfriend at the time she disappeared. Its believed that Syed’s motive was to kill her because he was jealous and she rejected him. However, Lee’s diary entries being used as evidence was not supported and there was no other evidence that Syed was possessive or abusive.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Adnan Syed’s Case

The evidence that was used against Syed is quite questionable, with Jay being the star witness, all of the phone calls made from Adnan’s phone, and Syed’s lawyer not calling up Asia McClain to testify, there were many things that made it difficult for Adnan to prove his innocence. During his trial, Syed faced.

There are six different ways a wrongful conviction can happen. “Wrongful convictions often occur as a result of incentivized testimony from witnesses, like jailhouse informant or “snitch” testimony, false confessions, eyewitness identification error, bad lawyering, government misconduct, and faulty forensic science” (Judson 779). The first one is somewhat relatable to the case considering there was an anonymous phone call that police received saying to look into Syed for the murder of Lee. Whoever made this phone call could have been telling the truth, or maybe they were trying to lead the police to Syed and away from themselves, being the actual killer. The second way wrongful convictions can occur is false confessions, and Jay Wilds was their main witness, but he did lie many times and even admitted to lying. There were many different versions of what happened that day, meaning there were quite a few false confessions that Wilds made. Jennifer was also another person who was interviewed, and her stories change but not nearly as much as Wilds’s testimonies. But those are the two people who made false statements, leading to Syed being in prison. The eyewitness identification error can tie into the false confessions in a way because if a witness can’t recall something properly, it is a false statement, but not intentional.

Bad lawyering can result in wrongful convictions because of the lawyer not doing their job to their fullest potential. Syed’s lawyer was Cristina Gutierrez, and she was no help to Syed during his trial. She failed to call an alibi to the stands and cross-examine the prosecution’s expert on the cell phone towers and how the pinpointed Syed at certain locations. This is another main reason Syed didn’t receive a fair trial and was convicted. Government misconduct is another way a case can be affected. During one of Wild’s interviews, the police talked to him for about half an hour without recording anything. Jay had a few different versions of where the murder took place, and when the police looked at the cell phone records, only one story was a slight possibility of where the murder took place. With the police talking to Jay about the stories they could prove were false, this allowed Wild to alter his story to convince the jury that he had no involvement. Lastly was the faulty forensic evidence. “Documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun show prosecutors tested about a dozen items: fingernail clippings, blood samples, a liquor bottle, and condom wrapper. None tested positive for the convicted killer, Syed” (Prudente). Adnan’s current attorney, C. Justin Brown, said that the tested DNA evidence showed that Syed does not deserve to be in jail, but they still don’t know who killed Hae. Maryland’s Court of Appeals has not reopened Syed’s case even after the Serial podcast was released.

The criminal justice system has repeatedly failed the people of The United States. With over 300 exonerations since the 1980s, that’s over 300 people who have gone to jail even though they were innocent. Who knows how many more people are currently sitting in prison for a crime they didn’t commit. People have even faced the death penalty for a crime they didn’t do, they were wrongfully convicted for a serious crime such as murder, or rape. If people can be convicted over a serious crime, why should people trust the criminal justice system to convict the correct people? If they convict the wrong person then it means that the killer is still free and can possibly cause more deaths. “166 people have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973, and 1507 people have been executed in the U.S. since 1973” (EJI). Adnan Syed could be one of the many more innocent people sitting in prison.

With all of the research done looking into the evidence that put Adnan Syed into jail, it is perceived that Syed was wrongfully convicted almost 20 years ago, and is still in jail currently. The evidence that was used against Adnan is suspicious because the evidence does not prove that Syed had any connections to Hae’s murder. The phone call records from the day Lee disappeared are all questionable because it is not known who made/received the calls on Syed’s phone, and it’s not known where the precise locations the cell phone was. Adnan said that he lent Jay his phone, and most likely would’ve had it by the time he went to the mosque. So if Jay had Adnan’s phone all day, that means he was the one making almost all of the calls on Syed’s phone. Also, Wild’s testimonies had many inconsistencies all throughout, so it is difficult to know when Wild was telling the truth. It’s also known that Adnan technically had an alibi, Asia McClain said she saw Syed at the library, but she was never called up by a lawyer to testify. They said that Syed did not have an alibi, but they didn’t give him a chance. Lastly, when they tried to say that Adnan was a possessive and abusive boyfriend, the evidence was not supported by facts or proof. Syed deserves to be given another chance and to have his case be re-evaluated because of the unfairness and injustice he received over the past 20 years.

Works Cited

1. Beaudry, Jennifer L., et al. “The Effect of Evidence Type, Identification Accuracy, Line-up
2. Presentation, and Line-up Administration on Observers’ Perceptions of Eyewitnesses.” Legal & Criminological Psychology, vol. 20, no. 2, Sept. 2015, pp. 343–364. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/lcrp.12030.
3. Cassell, Paul G. “Overstating America’s Wrongful Conviction Rate? Reassessing the
4. Conventional Wisdom about the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions.”
5. Arizona Law Review, vol. 60, no. 4, Dec. 2018, pp. 815–863. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=133823074&site=eds-live.
6. “Death Penalty.”
7. Equal Justice Initiative, eji.org/issues/death-penalty/#Innocence_and_Error.
8. Judson, Katherine. “Bias, Subjectivity, and Wrongful Convictions.”
9. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 50, no. 3, Spring 2017, pp. 779–794. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=1227778 43&site=eds-live.
10. Koenig, Sarah. “Season One.”
11. Serial, 2014, serialpodcast.org/season-one.
12. Leippe, Michael R., et al. “Prejudice and Terror Management at Trial: Effects of Defendant
13. Race/Ethnicity and Mortality Salience on Mock-Jurors’ Verdict Judgments.” Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 157, no. 3, May 2017, pp. 279–294. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.1184128.
14. Margaritoff, Marco. “The Full Story Of Adnan Syed And Hae Min Lee’s Murder Only Hinted At
15. In ‘Serial’.” All That’s Interesting, All That’s Interesting, 23 Mar. 2019, allthatsinteresting.com/adnan-syed-murder-of-hae-min-lee/4.
16. McDonell-Parry, Amelia. “’Serial’ Subject Adnan Syed: 4 Key Pieces of Evidence.”
17. Rolling Stone, 25 June 2018, www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/serial-subject-Adnan-Syed-4-key-pieces-of-evidence-explained-240960/.
18. Prudente, Tim. “After ‘Serial’ Podcast, Prosecutors Tested DNA Evidence in Adnan Syed Case. Here’s What They Found.”
19. Baltimoresun.com, Baltimore Sun, 21 Aug. 2019, www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-syed-dna-evidence-20190328-story.html.
20. Ryberg, Jesper. “Racial Profiling and Criminal Justice.”
21. Journal of Ethics, vol. 15, no. 1/2, Mar. 2011, pp. 79–88. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10892-010-9098-3.
22. Simpson, Susan. “Serial: A Comparison of Adnan’s Cell Phone Records and the Witness Statements Provided by Adnan, Jay, Jenn, and Cathy.”
23. The View From LL2, 18 Jan. 2015, viewfromll2.com/2014/11/23/serial-a-comparison-of-adnans-cell-phone-records-and-the-witness-statements-provided-by-adnan-jay-jenn-and-cathy/.
24. Simpson, Susan. “Serial: Why Jay’s Testimony Is Not Credible Evidence of Adnan’s Guilt.”
25. The View From LL2, 31 Dec. 2014, viewfromll2.com/2014/11/26/serial-why-jays-testimony-is-not-credible-evidence-of-Adnan’s-guilt/.
26. West, Emily, and Vanessa Meterko. “Innocence Project: Dna Exonerations, 1989-2014: Review of Data and Findings from the First 25 Years.”
27. Albany Law Review, vol. 79, no. 3, July 2016, pp. 717–795. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=123632692&site=eds-live.
28. Woodward, C.J., and J Graeff. “FindLaw’s Court of Special Appeals of Maryland Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, 2018, caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1893012.html.